description: The Washington State Criminal Justice Data Book combines state data from multiple agency sources that can be queried through CrimeStats Online. The Washington Statistical Analysis Center is a clearinghouse for state data on crime and justice topics, brought together from many different agencies and reporting systems. Use our Web-based query tools to target your crime and justice questions and search the databases for answers. Full data sets from each database are downloadable in Excel or SAS for more detailed analysis.; abstract: The Washington State Criminal Justice Data Book combines state data from multiple agency sources that can be queried through CrimeStats Online. The Washington Statistical Analysis Center is a clearinghouse for state data on crime and justice topics, brought together from many different agencies and reporting systems. Use our Web-based query tools to target your crime and justice questions and search the databases for answers. Full data sets from each database are downloadable in Excel or SAS for more detailed analysis.

These data, which are part of a larger study undertaken by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, evaluate the responses of criminal justice employees to affirmative action within criminal justice agencies. Information is provided on employees' (1) general mood, (2) attitudes across various attributes, such as race, sex, rank, education and length of service, and (3) demographic characteristics including age, sex, race, educational level, parents' occupations, and living arrangements. The use of criminal justice employees as the units of analysis provides attitudinal and perceptual data in assessing affirmative action programs within each agency. Variables include reasons for becoming a criminal justice employee, attitudes toward affirmative action status in general, and attitudes about affirmative action in criminal justice settings.

In 2024/25, criminal courts in Scotland registered around 92,380 new cases. Since 2014/15, the number of new cases entering Scottish courts has declined, with a large drop occurring between 2019/20 and 2020/21.

The Department of Justice Canada created the first performance monitoring framework (“the Framework”) for Canada’s criminal justice system in 2019. The Framework identified broad expected outcomes, measured by key indicators. The State of the Criminal Justice System Dashboard presents information from the Framework in one easily accessible location. The Dashboard shows information and data collected for over 40 performance indicators grouped by nine outcomes. This information is presented for the total population and by population-based theme. The population-based themes currently available are: Indigenous Peoples and Women. These themes present pre-filtered views of the data by sub-population, such as by Indigenous identity or sex/gender (where data are available). Under each theme, data users can also find contextual information on how different populations interact with the criminal justice system as victims, survivors, accused and offenders. The State of the Criminal Justice System Dashboard will be updated regularly as more data and information become available.

Ten percent of federal judgeships are currently vacant, yet little is known on the impact of these vacancies on criminal justice outcomes. Using judge deaths and pension eligibility as instruments for vacancies, I find that prosecutors dismiss more cases during vacancies. Prosecuted defendants are more likely to plead guilty and less likely to be incarcerated during vacancies, with defendants who are detained pretrial more likely to be incarcerated. The current rate of vacancies has resulted in 1,000 fewer prison inmates annually compared to a fully-staffed court system, a 1.5 percent decrease.

This data collection examines the impact of the Supreme Court decision in "UNITED STATES VS. LEON" on police search warrant applications in seven jurisdictions. For this collection, which is one of the few data collections currently available for the study of warrant activities, data were gathered from search warrant applications filed during a three-month period before the Leon decision and three months after it. Each warrant application can be tracked through the criminal justice system to its disposition. The file contains variables on the contents of the warrant such as rank of applicant, specific area of search, offense type, material sought, basis of evidence, status of informants, and reference to good faith. Additional variables concern the results of the warrant application and include items such as materials seized, arrest made, cases charged by prosecutor, type of attorney, whether a motion to suppress the warrant was filed, outcomes of motions, appeal status, and number of arrestees.

The data contain records of charges filed against defendants whose cases were filed by United States attorneys in United States district court during fiscal year 1999. The data are charge-level records, and more than one charge may be filed against a single defendant. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central Charge file. The charge-level data may be linked to defendant-level data (extracted from the EOUSA Central System file) through the CS_SEQ variable, and it should be noted that some defendants may not have any charges other than the lead charge appearing on the defendant-level record. The Central Charge and Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

Since 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has compiled the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to serve as periodic nationwide assessments of reported crimes not available elsewhere in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Each year, summary data are reported in four types of files: (1) Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest, (2) Property Stolen and Recovered, (3) Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), and (4) Police Employee (LEOKA) Data. The Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest data files include monthly data on the number of Crime Index offenses reported and the number of offenses cleared by arrest or other means. The counts include all reports of Index crimes (excluding arson) received from victims, officers who discovered infractions, or other sources. self-enumerated formsOffenses Known and Clearances by Arrest data for the years 1960-1974 have been released with a separate study number for each year. From 1975-1997 all UCR data can be found in UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: UNITED STATES. Starting with the year 1998, each of the four types of UCR summary data archived by ICPSR is released as a separate study under its own study number. Datasets: DS1: Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest, 1966 Index crimes reported by law enforcement agencies in the United States. inap.

This article explores the diffusion of criminal justice policy in the American states. Drawing on policy design theory, I code newspaper coverage of 44 criminal justice policies adopted across state governments from 1960–2008, identifying the image and power of target populations—the group singled out for special treatment under law. I test whether electoral pressure leads governments to disproportionally emulate innovations that reinforce popular stereotypes regarding who is entitled to policy benefits or deserving of policy burdens. I find strong support for this theory: State governments are more likely to adopt innovations that extend benefits to strong, popular, and powerful target populations or that impose burdens on weak and politically marginalized groups. This bias can be explained by pressures for responsive policy making, as my findings indicate that it is the national salience of the crime problem—but not the competitiveness or timing of state elections—that influences state adoption of popular “law and order” policy innovations.

Note:- Only publicly available Legal data can be worked upon.

Unlock a world of legal information with APISCRAPY's user-friendly services – Federal Court Data, State Court Record Data, legal data scraping, and PACER Data. We've made it simple for anyone, from legal professionals to researchers and businesses, to access over 100 million publicly available legal records.

Our Federal Court Data service provides details on federal legal matters, while State Court Record Data gives insights into state-level legal proceedings. With our legal data scraping capabilities, we ensure you have access to the information you need without any hassle. Plus, our integration with PACER Data ensures a comprehensive and reliable source for legal records.

Key Features:

Federal Court Data: Get insights into legal matters at the federal level, all at your fingertips.

State Court Record Data: Access information on legal proceedings at the state level, tailored to your specific needs.

Legal Data Scraping Made Easy: We've simplified the process of gathering legal data, making it accessible for everyone.

PACER Data Integration: Our platform integrates seamlessly with PACER Data, ensuring a reliable and complete source of legal records.

Over 100 Million Records: APISCRAPY provides access to a vast database of over 100 million publicly available legal records, offering unparalleled insights.

Whether you're a legal professional, researcher, or business looking for easy access to legal information, APISCRAPY's services cater to your needs. Choose us for straightforward and comprehensive legal data services, where simplicity and accessibility meet for your convenience.

[ Related Tags: public court records, online court records, federal court cases, Federal court case number search, find Federal court cases, court case by state, court Datasets, state court data, supreme court data, USA court datasets, Federal Court Data API , Litigation Data, Legal Data, Legal API, Legal Law, Legal Court records, Crime records, County court Datasets, All county court Datasets, Legal Analytics, Legal Intelligence, Legal Research, Attorney Data, Legal Parties Data, Judge Data, Case Research, Data Integration, US legal Data API, pacer case locator, pacer court records, free pacer search, pacer criminal case search, federal courts pacer, pacer API , pacer case locator free ]

Abstract (en): These criminal justice expenditure and employment (CJEE) data are taken from a special compilation of sources available from the Census Bureau's Annual Surveys of Governments, Finance Statistics and Employment Statistics. Levels of government covered are federal, state, county, municipal, and towns and townships. Information is included on total employment, total police protection, police protection with arrest powers, other police protection, judicial-legal employment, corrections employment, total expenditures, police protection expenditures, judicial-legal expenditures, and corrections expenditures. Types of expenditures include direct current, capital outlay, equipment, and intergovernmental. Types of employment include total, full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. All federal, state, and local governments in the United States. Larger governments were selected with certainty. Smaller governments were selected using probability sampling based on a ratio of governmental expenditures or indebtedness to the total expenditures and indebtedness of all noncertainty governments in specified groups. (1) Data tables for the 1990 data can be obtained by contacting the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) at 800-851-3420. (2) This collection was originally titled EXPENDITURE AND EMPLOYMENT DATA FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM [UNITED STATES]: EXTRACT FILE, 1990.

These data contain records of criminal defendants who were sentenced pursuant to provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of 1984 and reported to the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) during fiscal year 1996. It is estimated that over 90 percent of felony defendants in the federal criminal justice system are sentenced pursuant to the SRA of 1984. The data were obtained from the United States Sentencing Commission's Office of Policy Analysis' (OPA) Standardized Research Data File. The Standardized Research Data File consists of variables from the Monitoring Department's database, which is limited to those defendants whose records have been furnished to the USSC by United States district courts and United States magistrates, as well as variables created by the OPA specifically for research purposes. The data include variables from the Judgement and Conviction (J and C) order submitted by the court, background and guideline information collected from the Presentencing Report (PSR), and the report on sentencing hearing in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). These data contain detailed information such as the guideline base offense level, offense level adjustments, criminal history, departure status, statement of reasons given for departure, and basic demographic information. These data are the primary analysis file and include only statute, guideline computation, and adjustment variables for the most serious offense of conviction. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The data contain records of defendants in federal criminal cases filed in United States District Court during fiscal year 1995. The data were constructed from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) Central System file. According to the EOUSA, the United States attorneys conduct approximately 95 percent of the prosecutions handled by the Department of Justice. The Central System data contain variables from the original EOUSA files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics. Variables containing identifying information (e.g., name, Social Security Number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.

The data contain records of criminal appeals cases filed in United States Courts of Appeals during fiscal year 1998. The data were constructed from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts' (AOUSC) Court of Appeals file. These contain variables on the nature of the criminal appeal, the underlying offense, and the disposition of the appeal. An appeal can be filed by the government or the offender, and the appellant can appeal the sentence, the verdict, or both sentence and verdict. The data file contains variables from the original AOUSC files as well as additional analysis variables, or "SAF" variables, that denote subsets of the data. These SAF variables are related to statistics reported in the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, Tables 6.1-6.5. Variables containing information (e.g., name, Social Security number) were replaced with blanks, and the day portions of date fields were also sanitized in order to protect the identities of individuals. These data are part of a series designed by the Urban Institute (Washington, DC) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Data and documentation were prepared by the Urban Institute.